Sources of Racism

The question of where racism originated is a puzzling one. Many people hold hard beliefs of a specific moment in time or a specific conceptual birth that led to the development of racism. The current cultural climate makes discussions about racism particularly controversial and challenging. There is very little agreement to the fullest extent that could be hoped. Modern European historian Chris Waters suggests that racism in Britain suggests that “it is too simple to ‘explain’ postwar racism as a mere legacy of the nation’s ‘long colonial history'” (“‘Dark Strangers’ In Our Midst,” p. 215). Historian Wendy Webster argues “that while both representations of colonial wars and immigration showed black men invading white territory, this was a territory that was characteristically defined in terms of home and family” (“Colonial Wars and Immigration,” p. 561). Both historians argue for a nuanced perspective on the development of racism in the United Kingdom. However, Webster tended to lean more toward dependence on colonialism for her explanation than did Waters.

At the core of Waters’ argument was the concept of nationalism. The British people gave power to the us/them dichotomy that allowed for racial perspectives to develop. Waters examines these perspectives through a historiographical approach rather than a historically contemporary one. While he was discussing issues that occurred in the 1950s’ postwar period, he relied on information from later decades to explain how the perspectives of the time were persistent through generations. Most of his research was done from reading the works of authors from the 1960s. These writers were attempting to understand the racial perceptions that were existing in the postwar era, but, in doing so, they were portraying the reality of these attitudes being given to them from that generation. This cumulated in the development of different ideas, which is where Waters gets his explanation for the development of racism as being set apart from colonial influences. For example, Waters examines the discussion of Gorer by stating that, “because Gorer assumed that English ‘shyness’ was scientifically verifiable, that quality was used by most race relations writers to explain white attitudes to the racial other as more than a customary fear of strangers” (“‘Dark Strangers’ in Our Midst,” p. 224, emphasis added). Thus, a nationalism which birthed racism was attributed to a character trait of British people that was beyond their control.

Webster spends a majority of her time discussing the use of the domesticated female image as a description of English society in the postwar period. She also focuses on different more masculine tasks that contribute to the same domesticated view. None of these tasks hold quite as much weight as her arguments that directly point toward her assumption that it was the colonial history of the country that led to the racist perceptions. While she focuses on this domestic reality as the source of racist sentiment, she concludes by observing that she “argued here the image of a domestic sanctuary, threatened with violation, signifies a loss of imperial power” (“Colonial War and Immigration,” p. 583). Regardless of whether or not she is suggesting a causal relationship between Britain’s colonial past and modern racism, she is certainly suggesting some level of significant connection between the two.

Webster relies on the use of film during and after the postwar period. This is different from what Waters did, which puts her in a different position. She was not using other people’s interpretations of the period to figure out the source of racism, she was depending on what actually was produced during the time. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, they are both effective. However, on the assumption that both provide some semblance of reality, it must be noted that they got their information from two different places. A historiographical study produces a different result than a study of cultural history. Put together, then, the arguments create something entirely new. The argument then becomes that colonialism provided the resources for domesticated perspectives to show up that would directly or indirectly lead to nationalistic sentiments to create the dichotomy of us versus them.

Waters and Webster provide arguments that on the surface seem to be compatible. A close examination calls this assumption into question. However, it is also incorrect to simply assume that these two arguments are entirely incompatible. Rather, they provide two perspectives that explain the rise of the same thing. They suggest two different sources, influenced by different historical evidence. Brought together they suggest the very academically cliched reality that every historical event is dependent upon a plurality of causes.

Notes

Chris Waters, “‘Dark Strangers’ in Our Midst: Discourses of Race and Nation in Britain, 1947-1963.” Journal of British Studies 36, no. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, April 1997). p. 207-238.

Wendy Webster, “‘There’ll Always be an England’: Representations of Colonial Wars and Immigration, 1948-1968.” Journal of British Studies 40, no. 4 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Oct. 2001). p. 557-584.